Air Force Tanker Drama Over (Boeing Wins)

[davmat787]

Great post! The only thing I would add is that the winglets are only standard on the 767-400. I believe the tankers will have the winglets.

Last I heard the recipe for the new tanker consists of the 767-200 fuselage, 767-300 OR 767-400ER wings, and 787 style glass in the cockpit. Can you clarify this further? Thank you for the other winglet info.

Here is an interesting article as well on recent happenings with the Airbus tanker variant: Boom or bust! – RAAF KC-30 loses boom

http://australianaviation.com.au/2011/01/boom-or-bust-raaf-kc-30-loses-boom/

 

[ElFenix]

the 767 doesn't sell because they now fly 777 on those routes.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Last I heard the recipe for the new tanker consists of the 767-200 fuselage, 767-300 OR 767-400ER wings, and 787 style glass in the cockpit. Can you clarify this further? Thank you for the other winglet info.

Here is an interesting article as well on recent happenings with the Airbus tanker variant: Boom or bust! – RAAF KC-30 loses boom

http://australianaviation.com.au/2011/01/boom-or-bust-raaf-kc-30-loses-boom/

The F16 pilot must have been shitting bricks. goes in for a drink and then the boom snaps.
He does not know the condition of his receptacle - needs to get home ASAP with what he has in his tanks.

 

[davmat787]

the 767 doesn't sell because they now fly 777 on those routes.

The 777 was never really billed or used as a direct replacement for the 767, the 777 is a much larger aircraft with farther range. If anything, the 777 replaces the 747, and high density 767 runs where landing slots are at a premium, like LHR (Heathrow). In fact with the 757 gaining winglets, it has been flying transatlantic "thin" routes as well. The A330 is larger than the 767, and the 777 is larger than the A330. I think the 777 has something like a 100,000 pound higher max takeoff rating. In some respects the 777 revolutionized trans-pacific travel the way the 767 revolutionized trans-atlantic travel.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Japan-Airlines--/Boeing-777-346-ER/0576045/L/

 

[ElFenix]

The 777 was never really billed or used as a direct replacement for the 767, the 777 is a much larger aircraft with farther range. If anything, the 777 replaces the 747, and high density 767 runs where landing slots are at a premium, like LHR (Heathrow). In fact with the 757 gaining winglets, it has been flying transatlantic "thin" routes as well. The A330 is larger than the 767, and the 777 is larger than the A330. I think the 777 has something like a 100,000 pound higher max takeoff rating. In some respects the 777 revolutionized trans-pacific travel the way the 767 revolutionized trans-atlantic travel.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Japan-Airlines--/Boeing-777-346-ER/0576045/L/

poking around it looks like there are a lot of 777s on transatlantic routes, but then again i was looking at NY to LON. noted a few 757s as well. that said, i think i've only flown 767s and 747s on transatlantic routes.


777 from NRT to IAH is a long time in a tin can.

 

[davmat787]

poking around it looks like there are a lot of 777s on transatlantic routes, but then again i was looking at NY to LON. noted a few 757s as well. that said, i think i've only flown 767s and 747s on transatlantic routes.


777 from NRT to IAH is a long time in a tin can.

Sure, did not mean to imply the 777 is not used trans-atlantic, but it is too large for most routes other than hub to hub. The 767/A330, being smaller, can be economical on routes like Charlotte-Gatwick. Where the 777 has directly replaced the 767 is probably on routes where landing slots are restricted, like LHR in London or CDG in Paris, combined with the increase for seats due to increased travel demand.

The 787 will be a game changer in the sense that it offers models with a smaller seat capacity than say the 777/747 and A330/A340 BUT with lower seat costs per mile. So you get the best of both worlds, and open up more international point to point routes, rather than going through a major hub first or second.

A 777-200 typical three class rating is 300+ passengers, whereas the 787-800 offers 210-250 seats. This is per Boeing, but of course depends ultimately on how the airline structures the seating and class configurations.

 

[wirelessenabled]

The US Air Force does not operate on the same premise as a for profit airline, hence their requirements are going to be different. The 767 is a very proven and reliable airframe platform that transformed transatlantic aviation. For this and many other roles, the military wants a proven platform with tons of parts, knowledge, personnel, etc already out there. The A330 is a great aircraft, but it is not as prevelent as the 767 is, in the areas the US Air Force requires. Also, the A330 is simply too big for this role, but the closest other airframe Airbus offers is even older than the 767, that being the A300/A310 series.

And while the airframe may have been designed in the 70's, just about everything else is current technology. In fact, the 767 is still a viable enough airframe that Boeing and Aviation Partners offer winglet upgrades. These alone can improve fuel efficiency by 5-7%, and I believe are even standard on new builds.

Aircraft design at this scale simply doesn't translate to the consumer mindset of this years iWidget must be so much better than last years.

Maybe in this case the Air Force procured the product that would best match its needs per dollar?

EDIT: As per your suggestion that splitting this role among multiple airframes would lead to higher reliability, maintenance, whatever, see Southwest, Easyjet, Ryanair, etc. Multiple airframes == multiple parts systems, multiple training, multiple depts, etc. Look at the trend of multirole fighter/attack/bombers vs. how many different aircraft provided these roles during the cold war.

PS: I don't expect you to agree or even understand any of this, given your predisposed position indicated by you cleverly sneeking in "Air Farce" rather than Air Force. You go girl!

Although this is an old thread I note:

Air Force is hoping to replace 600+ airframes. They aren't Southwest, EasyJet etc. Canceling refueling flights in the middle of a crisis is not an option. Having multiple airframes costs more, also having 40 year old technology costs more. Why does it make more sense to accept the 20%+/- extra fuel burn of the 40 year old 767 airframe than it does to accept the extra cost of 2 airframes?

How many more airports can the B767 land at versus the A330? Neither are rough/dirt/short field aircraft like the C17.

How is the single platform F35 working out as a single airframe, multi-role for the US military?:thumbsdown: